Gauhati High Court
Page No.# 1/12 vs Sri W. Noren Singh A-8 @ W. Noren Meetei on 13 February, 2025
Author: K.R. Surana
Bench: Kalyan Rai Surana
Page No.# 1/12
GAHC010234342024
2025:GAU-AS:1605-DB
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : I.A.(Crl.)/1105/2024
NATIONAL INVESTIGATION AGENCY
GUWAHATI ZONE.
VERSUS
SRI W. NOREN SINGH A-8 @ W. NOREN MEETEI
S/O SRI WAYEMBAM TOMBA, R/O VILL.MOIRANGKAMPU, POROMPAT,
IMPHAL EAST, MANIPUR
Linked Case : Crl.A./265/2016
SRI W. NOREN SINGH A-8 @ W. NOREN MEETEI
S/O SRI WAYEMBAM TOMBA
R/O VILL.MOIRANGKAMPU
POROMPAT
IMPHAL EAST
MANIPUR
VERSUS
THE NATIONAL INVESTIGATION AGENCY
THROUGH ITS STANDING COUNSEL
Linked Case : I.A.(Crl.)/1098/2024
Page No.# 2/12
NATIONAL INVESTIGATION AGENCY
GUWAHATI ZONE
VERSUS
O. SAMARJIT SINGH @ NARESH @ KADENG
S/O LT. O DHANANJOY SINGH
R/O KEISHAMPAT AHEIBAM LEIRAKILL
P.S. IMPHAL WEST
DIST. IMPHAL WEST
MANIPUR
Linked Case : Crl.A./289/2016
O. SAMARJIT SINGH @ NARESH @ KADENG
S/O LT. O DHANANJOY SINGH
R/O KEISHAMPAT AHEIBAM LEIRAKILL
P.S. IMPHAL WEST
DIST. IMPHAL WEST
MANIPUR
VERSUS
NIA
Linked Case : I.A.(Crl.)/1101/2024
NATIONAL INVESTIGATION AGENCY
GUWAHATI ZONE
VERSUS
N. DILIP SINGH
S/O- SRI N CHAOBA SINGH
R/O- VILL- SINGJAMEI
WAIKHOM LEIKAI
P.S- SINGJAMEI
DIST- IMPHAL WEST
MANIPUR
Page No.# 3/12
Linked Case : Crl.A./113/2017
N. DILIP SINGH
S/O- SRI N CHAOBA SINGH
R/O- VILL- SINGJAMEI
WAIKHOM LEIKAI
P.S- SINGJAMEI
DIST- IMPHAL WEST
MANIPUR
VERSUS
NIA
Linked Case : I.A.(Crl.)/1104/2024
NATIONAL INVESTIGATION AGENCY
GUWAHATI ZONE.
VERSUS
A. IBOMCHA
S/O LATE JOY KUMAR SINGH
R/O KHONGMAN
SONE-4
IMPHAL RIMS
MANIPUR
Linked Case : Crl.A./295/2016
A. IBOMCHA
S/O LATE JOY KUMAR SINGH
R/O KHONGMAN
SONE-4
IMPHAL RIMS
MANIPUR
Page No.# 4/12
VERSUS
NIA
Linked Case : I.A.(Crl.)/1173/2024
) THE NATIONAL INVESTIGATION AGENCY
THROUGH ITS STANDING COUNSEL
CBI
VERSUS
OINAM MANITON SINGHA A-15
S/O OINAM NILAMANI SINGHA
R/O VILL. BAHADURGRAM
P.S. UDHARBOND
DIST. CACHAR
ASSAM
PIN 788030
Linked Case : Crl.A./264/2016
OINAM MANITON SINGHA A-15
S/O OINAM NILAMANI SINGHA
R/O VILL. BAHADURGRAM
P.S. UDHARBOND
DIST. CACHAR
ASSAM
PIN 788030
VERSUS
THE NATIONAL INVESTIGATION AGENCY
THROUGH ITS STANDING COUNSEL
Linked Case : I.A.(Crl.)/1193/2024
NATONAL INVESITGATION AGENCY
Page No.# 5/12
GUWAHATI ZONE
VERSUS
KHWAIRAKPAM JEETEN SINGH and KHOMBO @ DENE
S/O- LATE KH. SANAJAOBA SINGH
R/O- VILL- AWANG SEKMAI
P.S- SEKMAI
DIST- IMPHAL WEST
MANIPUR.
Linked Case : Crl.A./115/2017
KHWAIRAKPAM JEETEN SINGH and KHOMBO @ DENE
S/O- LATE KH. SANAJAOBA SINGH
R/O- VILL- AWANG SEKMAI
P.S- SEKMAI
DIST- IMPHAL WEST
MANIPUR.
VERSUS
NIA
Linked Case : I.A.(Crl.)/1221/2024
THE NATIONAL INVESTIGTION AGENCY
THROUGH ITS STANDING COUNSEL
VERSUS
SOUGAIJAM RAKESH SINGH @ S. RAKESH SINGH A-6
S/O DR. S. PRIYO KUMAR SINGH
R/O MOIRANGKHOM YEISKUL
P.S. IMPHAL WEST
DIST. IMPHAL WEST
MANIPUR
Page No.# 6/12
Linked Case : Crl.A./262/2016
SOUGAIJAM RAKESH SINGH @ S. RAKESH SINGH A-6
S/O DR. S. PRIYO KUMAR SINGH
R/O MOIRANGKHOM YEISKUL
P.S. IMPHAL WEST
DIST. IMPHAL WEST
MANIPUR
VERSUS
THE NATIONAL INVESTIGTION AGENCY
THROUGH ITS STANDING COUNSEL
Linked Case : I.A.(Crl.)/1222/2024
THE NATIONAL INVESTIGATION AGENCY
THROUGH ITS STANDING COUNSEL
VERSUS
MUTUM IBOHAL
S/O MUTUM SHYAMKISHORE
R/O VILL. KABOWAKCHING
P.S. NAMBOL
DIST. BISHNUPUR
MANIPUR
Linked Case : Crl.A./145/2017
MUTUM IBOHAL
S/O MUTUM SHYAMKISHORE
R/O VILL. KABOWAKCHING
P.S. NAMBOL
DIST. BISHNUPUR
MANIPUR
Page No.# 7/12
VERSUS
NIA
BEFORE
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KALYAN RAI SURANA
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MRIDUL KUMAR KALITA
ORDER
Date : 13.02.2025
(K.R. Surana, J)
Heard Mr. D.K. Das, learned senior counsel, assisted by Mr. B.
Bhardwaj, learned counsel, who appeared on instruction of Mr. R.K.D.
Choudhury, learned DSGI. Also heard Mr. B. Prasad, learned counsel for the
respondent.
2. These interlocutory applications have been filed for correction of
certain typographical error, which has crept in the common judgment and order
dated 23.09.2024, passed by this Court in Crl.A. No. 265/2016 and 12 other
connected appeals, being Crl.A. 165/ 2016, Crl.A. 262/ 2016, Crl.A. 263/2016,
Crl.A. 264/ 2016, Crl.A. 289/ 2016, Crl.A. 291/ 2016, Crl.A. 295/ 2016, Crl.A.
299/ 2016, Crl.A. 113/ 2017, Crl.A. 115 /2017, Crl.A. 145/ 2017. Accordingly, a
common order is being passed in all these interlocutory applications.
3. At the outset, the learned senior counsel for the applicant has
submitted that if the prayer made in this interlocutory application is allowed, it
would not touch upon the merit of the judgment and order and would only cure
the judgment of typographical errors, which do not have the effect of altering
Page No.# 8/12
the substance of the judgment and order.
4. It has been submitted that in paragraph 324, 350, 367, 393, 419, 436,
451, 462, 472, 489 and 499, the Court had observed that the submissions from
all sides was to the effect that after serving of his sentence, the concerned
accused nos. A-6, A-7, A-8, A-10, A-11, A-12, A-14, A-15, A-16, A-17, A-23
(since deceased), A-24 and A-25 respectively have served out their sentence
and released. In the said context, it is submitted that the accused persons were
released on bail and they have not served out their sentence.
5. Accordingly, the said part of the order as contained in paragraph nos.
324, 350, 367, 393, 419, 436, 451, 462, 472, 489 and 499 respectively shall
now be read as follows:
a. 324. The submission from all sides was to the effect that on
being released on bail, the accused no. A-6 has not served out his
sentence.
b. 350. The submission from all sides was to the effect that on being
released on bail, the accused no. A-7 has not served out his sentence.
c. 367. The submission from all sides was to the effect that on being
released on bail, the accused no. A-8 has not served out his sentence.
d. 393. The submission from all sides was to the effect that on being
released on bail, the accused no. A-10 has not served out his sentence.
e. 419. The submission from all sides was to the effect that on
being released on bail, the accused no. A-11 has not served out his
Page No.# 9/12
sentence.
f. 436. The submission from all sides was to the effect that on
being released on bail, the accused no. A-12 has not served out his
sentence.
g. 451. The submission from all sides was to the effect that on being
released on bail, the accused no. A-14 has not served out his sentence.
h. 462. The submission from all sides was to the effect that on being
released on bail, the accused no. A-15 has not served out his sentence.
i. 472. The submission from all sides was to the effect that on
being released on bail, the accused no. A-16 has not served out his
sentence.
j. 489. The submission from all sides was to the effect that on
being released on bail, the accused no. A-17 has not served out his
sentence.
k. 499. The submission from all sides was to the effect that on being
released on bail, the accused nos. A-23 (since deceased), A-24 and A-
256 have not served out their respective sentence.
6. The learned senior counsel for the applicant has also submitted that
the following further typographical errors have crept in the said judgment:
(a) In Sl. No. 30 of the index, the reference to "Crl. Appeal No.
283/2016" was erroneously made instead of "Crl. Appeal No.
Page No.# 10/12
263/2016", and also in the heading preceding paragraph 170, the
reference to "Crl. Appeal No. 283/2916" was erroneously made instead
of "Crl. Appeal No. 263/2016",. Accordingly, "Crl. Appeal No. 283/2016"
appearing at Sl. No. 30 of the index and "Crl. Appeal No. 283/2916" in
the heading preceding paragraph 170 shall now be read as "Crl. Appeal
No. 263/2016".
(b) In Sl. No. 32 of the index, as well as in the heading preceding
paragraph 179, the reference to "Crl. Appeal No. 145/2017" was
erroneously made instead of "Crl. Appeal No. 299/2016". Accordingly,
"Crl. Appeal No. 145/2017" appearing at Sl. No. 32 of the index, as
well as in the heading preceding paragraph 179 shall now be read as
Crl. Appeal No. 299/2016 in both instances.
(c) In paragraph-6 at Sl. No.5, the accused Thaoroijam Herojit Singh
@ Prem @ Mangal (A-5) has been shown as "Absconder (not tried in
this batch)", whereas the said accused has been convicted by the Trial
Court under section 20 of the UA(P) Act and sentenced to 7 (seven)
years rigorous imprisonment and further sentenced to pay a fine of
Rs.10,000/- and in default of payment of fine to further imprisonment
of one year. He has not preferred appeal before the Hon'ble High
Court. Accordingly, the sentence column in paragraph no.6, Sl No.5
shall now be read as "S.20 UA(P)A - 7 yrs and fine with default
stipulation".
(d) In paragraph-6 at Sl. No.7, the reference to "Crl. Appeal No.
Page No.# 11/12
264/2016" was erroneously made instead of "Crl. Appeal No.
289/2016". Accordingly, "Crl. Appeal No. 264/2016" appearing in
paragraph-6 at Sl. No.7 shall now be read as Crl. Appeal No. 289/2016.
(e) In paragraph-6 at Sl. No.20, 21 and 22, in the sentence column, it
is referred as "Suppl. Charge sheet filed. Not tried in this batch", which
is an incorrect fact. Accordingly, the sentence column in paragraph
no.6, Sl. Nos.20, 21 and 22 shall now be read as "declared absconder
on 25.12.20211 by the learned Trial Court".
(f) In paragraph 6, after Sl. No.20, Sl. Nos.20, 21 and 22 has been
repeated. Accordingly, the seriatim stands corrected as Sl. No.23, 24
and 25.
(g) In paragraph 7 (f), in the fourth line, the Court has observed that
"However, A-1 to A-5 were absconding", which is an incorrect fact.
Accordingly, the same stands substituted as "However, A-1 to A-4 were
absconding".
(h) In paragraph-130 of the judgment, it is stated as "It was
submitted that A-12 and A-24 had jumped bail and were declared as
absconders. A-21 and 22 were also absconders. A-6, A-14 and A-15
were on bail during trial. A-5, A-713, 16-19 and 24-25 were in custody
during the trial", which is an incorrect fact. Accordingly, the paragraph-
130 stands corrected as "It was submitted that A-1 to A-4 had jumped
bail and were declared as absconders. A-6, A-14 and A-15 were on bail
during trial. A-5, A-7, A-13, A-16 to 19 and A-24 to 25 were in custody
Page No.# 12/12
during their trial".
7. In the judgment and order, in the list of appearing counsel, the name
of "Mr. D. Choudhury", learned counsel for the N.I.A. is mentioned, which is
erroneous, which should be read as "Mr. D. Bharadwaj". Accordingly, the name
of "Mr. D. Choudhury" is substituted with "Mr. D. Bharadwaj".
8. Accordingly, this interlocutory application stands allowed and disposed
of.
9. This order shall be read together with judgment and order dated
23.09.2024 passed in Crl.A. 165/ 2016, Crl.A. 262/ 2016, Crl.A. 263/2016, Crl.A.
264/ 2016, Crl.A. 265/ 2016, Crl.A. 289/ 2016, Crl.A. 291/ 2016, Crl.A. 295/
2016, Crl.A. 299/ 2016, Crl.A. 113/ 2017, Crl.A. 115 /2017, Crl.A. 145/ 2017.
JUDGE JUDGE
Comparing Assistant
